The investigation will undoubtedly expose errors and violations by TransOcean and Haliburton. But as of now we have three documented incidents where BP willfully ignored or rejected standard safety measures, at least two of which were argued for by TransOcean, and overridden by BP: one being the issue of the damaged gasket; another being the refusal to take the safer route to capping the well; and a newer revelation that BP sent an entire inspection crew home the day before the explosion. One of that crew's tasks was to inspect the cement plugs that are inserted in the well shaft prior to the capping process, and it is believed that at least one of those plugs failed (which would be on Haliburton), leading to the explosion. Had that crew been allowed to stay on and do their job, the flawed plug(s) may very well have been detected.

Now, that's a lot of "believed to be's" and "may haves" and "should haves". But one thing that is certain, is that if all of those issues had been addressed according to industry standards, the rig would have been enroute to its next location, eleven crewmen would be alive today, the Gulf waters and it's inhabitants would be as vibrant as ever, and the environment and economy of the region would be conducting business as usual.

But some people are just happier with their own "facts".

BTW, km, all you have to do is Google Countdown on MSNBC, and look up last Friday's broadcast to view the report about the premature dismissal of the inspection crew. And I've already posted the Rachel Maddow report which covered the broken gasket and BP's insistence on rushing the closure of the well. So spare us the "support your points" baloney. Done. And done.

apparently you can't or don't want to read, because I've posted links or referrals to my sources for the information I've posted such as TransOcean bringing the damaged gasket to BP's attention

No I knew about that but it doesn't relieve TO of liability or transfer it to BP... for the reasons to which poly has drawn attention.

Quote:

BP's decision not to repair it. Just like their refusal to follow TransOcean's request to cap the well following a slower, safer process.

No, you've been taken in by over-emotional reporting and one-sided misinformation. Compare the statement of CEO Tony Hayward that "safe and reliable operations are the number 1 priority for BP and the company has a very strong record of safe and reliable operations in the Gulf of Mexico".

Quote:

Regarding your unaffected and uncaring attitude toward the people who have been most undeservedly impacted by this event,

No that's you... what victims and their families want is truth, not bias, hate and propaganda.

Quote:

if you have to wait for someone else to bring it up first, that just proves that you don't give a crap

Oh I see... you get the science wrong but still can't give up so you have to try another tack.

Quote:

If this had happened to Exxon off the coast of England, you'd be calling for every head within reach. And you know it.

Compare the statement of CEO Tony Hayward that "safe and reliable operations are the number 1 priority for BP and the company has a very strong record of safe and reliable operations in the Gulf of Mexico".

Quote:

No that's you... what victims and their families want is truth, not bias, hate and propaganda

So what the victims get instead from BP is indifference, cover-ups, and blame-shifting.

Quote:

you get the science wrong but still can't give up so you have to try another tack.

Well, I said I'm neither scientist not engineer. And I also said that I don't mind being corrected by anyone that knows what they're talking about. If what poly explained is correct, then you can tell me I told you so 'til your tongue gets numb. But only on the issue of the science, because I stand firm on everything else I've said.

Gawd, this line-by-line stuff is tedious. I can see why you embrace it. to you, too, Slick.

Which one? I saw that but it didn't make any difference because it was mainly speculation that was already contradicted by what BP were saying. What you've got is amateurs trying to contradict the experts and getting it wrong... and then you lot all lapping it up like you did over Iraq because of programmes like 60 Minutes - oh, and by the way there aren't any weapons of mass destruction over there posing a threat to national security, and there never were.

No kidding, Sherlock. Except that very few here bought the Bush/Cheney line about WMD (and I readily admit that I was one of the very few who did at first), and we're still screaming for their heads today. I don't hear anyone defending them, do you? Wanna try a relevant analogy, now?

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.